Talk:Theosophy

Monadic plane

Hi there, I came across a page (by a different route) called Monadic plane which claims it relates to Theosophy. The page is a stub and really not providing much information, so I took a look at this one to see if the subject is covered, with a view to suggesting merger. It is not my area, but this page does not cover it. So my question is: is this correctly related to Theosophy? in which case I will propose merger, or is it related to something else? Or indeed nothing? (it lacks for verifiable sources). If it is nothing I will nominate for deletion instead. If it is releavnat and a subject in its own right, could someone take a look at it please? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

pre-Blavatsky theosophy

the term theosophy was originally used to describe the Jakob Böhme not Blavatsky, surely there should be some discussion of that as well. StrongALPHA (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We have a separate article that already covers that topic: Christian theosophy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

and ancient/Classical Greek theology in their time, as this article admits but hasn't reorganized appropriately

Controversial labels in lede

There needs to be a discussion per WP:TALK before adding controversial labels such as Occult in the opening lede. Summarization per WP:LEAD does not support "Occult" label in my view. We would need some consensus to add such labels, while ignoring several other possible labels, including esoteric, spiritual, mystical, etc. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ctrl-F, enter occult, it will provide many results from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I also find many results for esotericism, which is a broader term.

Also, many good and recent WP:RS sources refer to Theosophy as "spiritual" or 'mystical" religious movement, which are more neutral terms, while occult has more negative connotations.

I think neutral terms "spiritual" or 'mystical" should be used in the lead per WP:RS and WP:NPOV (instead of "occult").

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If Theosophy isn't occultism, then nothing is. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As descibed on the Occult Wiki page, with details and WP:RS sources, Occult is mainly associated with concepts and practices of:

1. astrology,

2. alchemy,

3. and natural magic.

The term occult sciences was used in 16th-century Europe to refer to astrology, alchemy, and natural magic.

Occultism is thus often used to categorise such esoteric traditions as Qabalah, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Wicca, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, New Age,[3] and the left-hand path and right-hand path.

While several scholars in the field of esoteric traditions may consider Occultism to be a good categorization for Theosophy, some other scholars may disagree. And for the general Wiki reader, Occultism is a very complex concept, and it would be confusing in the opening line of "Theosophy" per WP:Readability and WP:CONTEXT. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think, since Occultism is a complex concept, it is covered well in the last line of the first paragraph, with context:

Although many adherents maintain that Theosophy is not a religion, it is variably categorized by religious scholars as both a new religious movement and a form of occultism from within Western esotericism.

I am not disputing the link between Occultism and Theosophy, but per WP:CONTEXT, it is appropriate to cover it with context as done in the last line of the first paragraph, and not in the opening first line, without context. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, Theosophy has evolved beyond initial Helena Blavatsky version with Annie Besant and other largely non-occult figures. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Theosophys 'establishment' is not greater than its origin(s)

To suggest this from the very outset of the introduction is misleading, by placing it as more important than the topics origin(s), which is not the US. It was not 'founded' there nor is it its' birthplace. Even from a 'legal' perspective, it erroneously suggests the body of text will support a weak introduction. ~2025-38804-12 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)